Hi everyone,

Splitting the thread off to avoid hijacking it

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Mitar <mmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think this conversation is diverging from the question of the
> *service* we should offer to others to licensing of the content.
> Licensing does not say anything about the service one should offer for
> the content. Any service, any API, is more or less something one does
> extra on top of the licensing requirements. We could just offer dumps
> of data and this is it. But if we offer more, some specialized
> services, uptime and availability and so on, that does not have much
> with the licensing of the content. That discussion should thus be on
> some other layer. Investigating licensing will not give us much
> insight into the question if we should go into the business of
> offering data services or not.

I think this is a useful way of thinking about the problem.  One thing we
discussed quite a bit at the Wikimedia Developer Summit earlier this month
is the distinction between the content format (see "content format" <
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T119022>) and the APIs that we use to
access the content (see "content access":  <

The two are incredibly easy to conflate, in part because one could argue
that the content format is merely a translatable expression of the
underlying data model.  That said, it seems to me that we have to stop
abstracting things *somewhere*, to avoid getting deeply lost in too many
layers of abstraction.  If nothing else, we need a "free format" per the
Free Content definition (<http://freedomdefined.org/>).

Mitar, is your layer distinction between "service" and "content" the same
one that I'm trying to draw between "content format" and "content access"?
I have further thoughts on this, but I just want to make sure we're talking
about the same distinction.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to